newarenanow wrote:Cost prohibited and scheduling constraints. Do you know how much it would cost to fly the team to China, Brazil, and india? And the tax of travel on those players. Plus no one over here would be watching those games due to time differences.

Montreal, Toronto and Boston are established franchises that have been around forever in large markets that the NHL is striving for. Hamilton is unfortunate that it didn't already have one.

newarenanow wrote:Cost prohibited and scheduling constraints. Do you know how much it would cost to fly the team to China, Brazil, and india? And the tax of travel on those players. Plus no one over here would be watching those games due to time differences.

Montreal, Toronto and Boston are established franchises that have been around forever in large markets that the NHL is striving for. Hamilton is unfortunate that it didn't already have one.

It did.

How long ago? Was it before all of the media, television, corporate contracts, etc where the sports world is today, because back in the old days, fan support is what mattered.

Apparently it was greater than Winnipeg when the Jets became the Yotes. The last few seasons are anomalies based on the bankruptcy, relocation threats, uncertain ownership, etc. Suite & sponsorship sales tend to be multi-year agreements though so some of that revenue would be locked in regardless of the circumstances.

Hulsizer is getting the team for free, so he should be in good position build things back up. A lot of Moyes losses were due to the usurious interest rates he was paying Dell. Hulsizer won't have debt so this should be an opportunity to rebuild things without short term pressure. Plus the new CBA in 12/13 will be tweaked (lower Cap floor for sure, possibly more revenue sharing) to address the concerns of the lower revenue teams.

The Yotes didn't get in trouble when the United Healthcare guy relocated them to Phoenix. They got in trouble when the real estate developer (Ellman) that didn't have any $$$ bought the team, gave a stake to Gretzky, then tried to use the team as an anchor tenant for some Scottsdale real estate development project. They couldn't get the arena in Scottsdale, so Glendale built them a free one but it lacked some revenue streams.

Their tale is quite common among distressed NHL teams. Under-capitalized ownership group and poor arena lease. That is the recipe for NHL bankruptcy. Hulsizer won't have those issues.

I didn't ask about Winnipeg, I asked about Phoenix.The recurring argument for keeping a team there is that they will have far greater corporate support than other options.I'd like to see some actual evidence of that before buying into the idea.

Draftnik wrote:Hulsizer is getting the team for free, so he should be in good position build things back up.

That's not very convincing evidence for the new ownership group or support for keeping the team there.If that's the primary point of financial stability, I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

columbia wrote:I didn't ask about Winnipeg, I asked about Phoenix.The recurring argument for keeping a team there is that they will have far greater corporate support than other options.I'd like to see some actual evidence of that before buying into the idea.

Draftnik wrote:Hulsizer is getting the team for free, so he should be in good position build things back up.

That's not very convincing evidence for the new ownership group or support for keeping the team there.If that's the primary point of financial stability, I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Same could be said for the Pens too.

2 Bankruptcies, the most recent due to an owner overspending and being in a bad arena lease, files bankruptcy, Lemieux comes in, gets the team for basically nothing, brings on a strong partner, gets a more owner friendly CBA, gets a new arena with a favorable lease, and now has one of the strongest franchises in the league.

1. Comparing the NFL franchises to the NHL and whether they can be moved or not doesn't make sense. They weren't formed by the same people and are not run by the same guidelines. It just seemed weird to keep using that point.

2.

I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Why? They didn't have issues up until the last 2 years with attendance or corporate support. They just weren't a good team (bad team does not = bad market). I've seen the new owner on interviews and he seems to understand his role and what he needs to do. He's not planning on blowing up the front office and is going to stay out of the operations of the club. His quote was something along the lines of "My job is to just write checks."

1. Comparing the NFL franchises to the NHL and whether they can be moved or not doesn't make sense. They weren't formed by the same people and are not run by the same guidelines. It just seemed weird to keep using that point.

2.

I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Why? They didn't have issues up until the last 2 years with attendance or corporate support. They just weren't a good team (bad team does not = bad market). I've seen the new owner on interviews and he seems to understand his role and what he needs to do. He's not planning on blowing up the front office and is going to stay out of the operations of the club. His quote was something along the lines of "My job is to just write checks."

Why? If the viability of the team is rooted in the owner getting the team for free, that's extraordinarily sketchy.

columbia wrote:I didn't ask about Winnipeg, I asked about Phoenix.The recurring argument for keeping a team there is that they will have far greater corporate support than other options.I'd like to see some actual evidence of that before buying into the idea.

Draftnik wrote:Hulsizer is getting the team for free, so he should be in good position build things back up.

That's not very convincing evidence for the new ownership group or support for keeping the team there.If that's the primary point of financial stability, I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Same could be said for the Pens too.

2 Bankruptcies, the most recent due to an owner overspending and being in a bad arena lease, files bankruptcy, Lemieux comes in, gets the team for basically nothing, brings on a strong partner, gets a more owner friendly CBA, gets a new arena with a favorable lease, and now has one of the strongest franchises in the league.

Hmmm.

The Coyotes are drafting Crosby's clone soon?The universe conspired for PGH to have the team remain here; we got very, very lucky.

I remember when there was talk of the Pens moving to Saskatoon, so I'm quite aware of their disastrous financial history.

columbia wrote:I didn't ask about Winnipeg, I asked about Phoenix.The recurring argument for keeping a team there is that they will have far greater corporate support than other options.I'd like to see some actual evidence of that before buying into the idea.

Draftnik wrote:Hulsizer is getting the team for free, so he should be in good position build things back up.

That's not very convincing evidence for the new ownership group or support for keeping the team there.If that's the primary point of financial stability, I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Its complicated. When WPG moved to PHX the Suns controlled America West Arena. The Suns got all the sponsorships & suites. Plus the way the arena is configured only allowed for ~ 14K non-obstructed view seats. I don't think they had huge sponsorship revenues when they moved into Jobbing.com.

Its projected to be the 7th largest US Metro by 2025. It definitely is a spot on the map in any long term plan. If the NHL were creating a league from scratch today the harsh reality is the Sun Belt markets would dominate and rust belt markets like Buffalo and Pittsburgh wouldn't be considered because of their declining population.

bhaw wrote:1. Comparing the NFL franchises to the NHL and whether they can be moved or not doesn't make sense. They weren't formed by the same people and are not run by the same guidelines. It just seemed weird to keep using that point.2.

I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Why? They didn't have issues up until the last 2 years with attendance or corporate support. They just weren't a good team (bad team does not = bad market). I've seen the new owner on interviews and he seems to understand his role and what he needs to do. He's not planning on blowing up the front office and is going to stay out of the operations of the club. His quote was something along the lines of "My job is to just write checks."

Why? It occurred frequently (from both sides) throughout the entire process.

bhaw wrote:1. Comparing the NFL franchises to the NHL and whether they can be moved or not doesn't make sense. They weren't formed by the same people and are not run by the same guidelines. It just seemed weird to keep using that point.2.

I'm pretty dubious of PHX ever being a viable hockey market.

Why? They didn't have issues up until the last 2 years with attendance or corporate support. They just weren't a good team (bad team does not = bad market). I've seen the new owner on interviews and he seems to understand his role and what he needs to do. He's not planning on blowing up the front office and is going to stay out of the operations of the club. His quote was something along the lines of "My job is to just write checks."

Why? It occurred frequently (from both sides) throughout the entire process.

My point being that one league could allow for a franchise to be moved wherever and whenever and it would have no impact on the other. They are not governed by the same rules, so the phrasing of why is it ok if an nfl franchise moves but not an nhl (or whatever was said) doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

bhaw wrote:My point being that one league could allow for a franchise to be moved wherever and whenever and it would have no impact on the other. They are not governed by the same rules, so the phrasing of why is it ok if an nfl franchise moves but not an nhl (or whatever was said) doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I doubt the rules for franchise movement/relocation differs very much from league to league. The NHL and Balsillie both used examples from other leagues as part of their case.

The Phoenix Coyotes' long ownership saga persists, and one of the factors delaying a sale has been the National Hockey League's asking price for the team. The NHL bought the Coyotes out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 for $140 million. The league's asking price has been pegged at $170 million. That figure might have to come down to get a deal done.

Draftnik wrote:I'm not anti-Canada but these type of threads are incredibly short sighted. Nobody remembers the NHL's currency equalization program. EDM & CGY were struggling for STH in the late 90s. They had to run community campaigns to get people to come to games. EDM had to cobble 30 guys together to buy the team. OTT were bankrupt. The Molson's sold MON to an American that performed a leveraged buyout because no Canadian citizen would step forward and buy the Habs because they were a risky proposition. TML are a cash cow and VAN has also done well. Canadian teams will do well as long as the price of oil is relatively high. That has driven the Canadian $ to parity with the American $. If the price of oil drops, the value of the CDN $ will plummet and so will the profitability of CDN franchises.

Nobody would dispute that Canada at a macro level likes hockey much more than the US, but...There aren't enough large metro areas in Canada to support a 30 team league. Also, as the NHL becomes more dependent on corporate revenue (luxury suites, premium seats, sponsorships) instead of fan ticket revenue, the lack of large CDN corporations compared to the plethora of large US corporations makes Canada less viable for the evolving model of how professional sports franchises make $$$.

Quebecor Media said Thursday it "now has all the tools it needs" to bring a National Hockey League team to Quebec City, after reporting better-than-expected profits.

The media giant's fourth-quarter profits rose 83 per cent, helped in part by strength in its telecommunications business and a gain on valuation.

Revenue from the company's telecommunications segment rose about seven per cent to $634.8 million. Total revenue rose 5.5 per cent to $1.15 billion.

I had to look them up on wikipedia, but man... Quebecor Media is a big player. Videotron, Sun Media, etc, etc, etc... if they're serious about getting an NHL team, I've got to think it's just a matter of time.